New Meme: Screw the Rich — They’re Democrats!

Bill Kristol may have put a finger on a way to assuage Republican heartburn about raising taxes on the wealthy as part of a fiscal cliff-averting deal with President Obama. He asks, incredulously: Is the GOP really going to “fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of whom live in Hollywood and are hostile to Republican principles?”

Victor Davis Hanson seconds the motion: “Given that the wealthiest counties in the U.S. are mostly blue-voting elites who caricature Republicans for not voting for higher taxes, maybe Republicans should focus on ensuring no new taxes on the $80,000 to $250,000 upper-middle-class households and let the tax chips fall where they may on the mostly Obama households above that.”

But notice the moving goalposts. Kristol asserted that half of millionaires vote Democratic — a claim I doubt (for reasons outlined below), but which, on its face, isn’t completely insane. Hanson, however, parachutes into What Are You Smoking-stan with the idea that households making more than $250,000 are “mostly Obama households.” This is just not true. And it’s not even close.

Start with the Center for Responsive Politics’ revealing table on the top donors to President Obama and Mitt Romney. Individuals who donated to Obama were most often affiliated with the University of California, Microsoft Corp., Google Corp., the U.S. government, and Harvard University. Microsoft and Google undoubtedly boast their share of millionaires. But employees of universities and the federal government are far more likely to fall into Hanson’s $80,000-250,000 category.

Overall, the securities and investment industries have given more than $67 million to Republican campaigns and less than $40 million to Democrats. That excludes contributions to Super PACs, where the balance of Wall Street donations has been even more skewed toward Romney and conservative groups. Donors in the securities and investment industries have given nearly $51 million to outside groups this election cycle, with nearly $44 million of that going to conservative groups…

Forget the financial services industry. There are more data points that explode Hanson’s fiction. Obama raised more from individual donations of less than $200, while Romney raised more from donations of more than $2,000 — not dispositive (perhaps many ordinary Republican donors are, like the poor widow in the Gospel of Mark, generous to a fault) but highly suggestive. Derek Thompson points to more data that suggests it’s Democrats, not Republicans, who are mostly likely to be found in Hanson’s upper-middle-class sweet spot: after households reach $100,000, they are more likely to vote Republican.

Columbia University statistician and political scientist Andrew Gelman, too, has demonstrated empirically that there are more rich Republicans than Democrats. In May, Adam Bonica of Stanford University looked at $460 million in political contributions from 377 of the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, and here’s what he found:

(Source: Adam Bonica)

To be sure, there is an undercurrent to the Kristol-Hanson (and before them Andrew Ferguson) argument that we need to acknowledge — namely that the rich are far more likely than not to be socially liberal. (I think these are the “Republican principles” that Kristol refers to.) It’s a point I’d happily concede. But we must not consequently fool ourselves into believing that the rich and super-rich are all, contrary to popular myth, aligned with the likes of George Soros.

There is a kernel of wisdom in Kristol-Hanson meme: it won’t “kill the country” if we raise taxes on the wealthy in the amount that Obama is asking for. And $700 or $800 billion over 10 years really is just a fig leaf. We’d still face a long-term deficit problem, and we’d still need to reform our entitlement structure. Indeed, this relatively piddling amount of revenue is the reason why liberals were apoplectic last year when the details of the grand bargain were revealed.

I’m not going to quibble, however. If “Go ahead and tax the rich — they’re Democrats!” eventually becomes the sweetener that the Republican establishment needs to sell a deal to itself and to the Tea Party, and thereby save the country from a needless economic crisis, I say run with it.

Hide 16 comments

16 Responses to New Meme: Screw the Rich — They’re Democrats!

the real meme is that the proposed tax increase is on “income” and not wealth (until the lopsided “deferred income” loophole is closed, the “wealthy” are safe). ergo; the “rich” are not being taxed more; those earning $250,000.00 are being taxed more. big difference. that said; I am of the opinion that ALL income (including deferred) should be taxed at the same rate; $25,000.00 WalMart cashier, $25,000,000.00 infielder for NY Yankees, or $250,000,000.00 hedge fund manager. gradually grandfather out individual tax deductions for (home) mortgage interest, charitable contributions, etc. of course, spending needs to be addressed, but the idea that an increase in taxes for thoses earning $250,000.00 or more is taxing the rich is, as you say; meme.

Well, I’m in the upper levels, I voted for Obama, and I welcome a sensible tax increase. If the Kristol argument is what it takes to make the Repubs accept the reality of the need for more revenues, more power to it.

I think the author is wrong. 8 of the 10 wealthiest counties voting for Obama pretty much shows that at least a very sizable % of the wealthy are Dems(moreso because of liberal social views than economics). Just look at the northshore suburbs of Chicag0(except tiny Kenilworth). Very,very Democratic. Silicon Valley. Westchester Co,NY.
No,the Dems have a new coalition. Poor blacks,latino’s single women. And socially liberal well to do.

In many respects the tax plan the Romney advocated and then ran away from late in the campaign made sense. Reduce rates, and then remove the ability, especially for the wealthy to avoid paying. Also, tax carried interest and dividends as regular income as well. Thus the wealthy can have their rate deductions, but would likely be contributing more.

Also, let’s work toward eliminating all of the subsidies the government gives out. Starting with those directed toward those who shouldn’t need them.

After all if Citibank and BP truly believe in the free market, why do they need government hand outs to encourage their business. They should run their businesses on their own, and should invest only their own revenue, and not expect tax payer money to pick up the slack.

Who cares who the rich vote for? Does anyone know what a moral principle is anymore? It shouldn’t even matter what the tax and revenue ramifications might be. Is the income tax a moral form of taxation?

It discourages productivity — especially when resulting tax revenues are then transferred to unproductive citizens. We ought to institute a substantial minimum wage for those willing to work and sunset all welfare programs.

“I think the author is wrong. 8 of the 10 wealthiest counties voting for Obama pretty much shows that at least a very sizable % of the wealthy are Dems(moreso because of liberal social views than economics). ”

This is indeed a paradox if the above data in all its multifaceted form is a true and accurate representation of reality.

Ecological fallacy? Could it be that old those rich folks in Marin or Westchester are being outvoted by their maids and lawn guys who live in the ‘affordable housing’ crammed into the bad part of county?

Or is it perception. Murray’s ‘Coming Apart’ shows that his ‘superzips’ show two distinct patterns. The super-super zips, the ones which are not only wealthy by near centers of financial and cultural power (NY, SF, DC) skew far left of the surrounding areas, while super zips around, say, Dallas or Atlanta are pretty much in line with the surroundings (which are themselves usually top 20%).

So the perception of the wealthy as lefty comes from us seeing mostly wealthy lefties of the George Cluny or Mark Zuckerberg sort.

BTW, as a California taxpayer (and UC graduate), it chaps my hide the UC is supporting a partisan political candidate.

Hitting at the income level will probably have a disproportionate affect on people living in blue states, where a higher cost of living prompts a higher salary and income bracket. So hitting people above $250,000 will impact Democratic areas more than Republican ones, even if it doesn’t hit the individuals equally.

The question for Conservatives and Libertarians to ask is not who pays the taxes,or how much or with what methods of collection are used. The question to ask is what do we need the spending for? As long as the New Deal,the Great Society,World Empire and Interest on money created out of thin air is allowed to either exist or not be drastically cut back then America is fiscally doomed. There is no other way. Once the socialist genie was released from the bottle America’s bankrupt fate was sealed. Talking about which “Rich” should pay more in taxes is a waste of time. Finally,as an aside,if you really want to stir up a hornet’s nest then I would talk about taxing the “tax free” trusts,endowments,foundations and “non-profits” of the Super Rich Globalist Elites. I guarantee that would raise a few hackles.

I guess it is just anecdotal to see damn near every Audi A6 in a driveway in Bethesda have a Van Hollen or Obama 2012 bumper sticker or 80% of the front yards in Wellesley has an Obama and Warren sign in their front yard (apparently 15% of the liberals don’t bother with years signs). My wife works with nothing but elite-educated, well-off people. She is certain none of them voted Republican. Quips about Republicans are common and acceptable in management meetings. These are people who live in $2 million dollar homes and make salaries of $400k+/year. If you want to see Romney or GOP bumper stickers and yard signs you need to go out to blue-collar, rural areas where families make a fraction of what even one Northwest D.C. yuppie makes.

So yeah, I’m not only for taxing the high-income types more, I’m for a wealth tax.

Mr. M_Young, you misunderstand what the article says about the University of California, it said “Individuals who donated to Obama were most often affiliated with the University of California, etc” not “Institutions who donated to Obama were the University of California, etc” So, as an alumnus and tax payer, I don’t see what your complaint is – the university system is not donating, individuals associated with it are. Unless, of course, you are saying that those individuals should not be allowed to donate to political campaigns.

When it comes to voting, Andrew Gelman shows that there is no such thing as “the rich vote”. A majority of rich people in rich liberal states vote (e.g. CT, MA, NY) Democratic while a majority of rich people in poor conservative states (e.g. TX, LA, MS) vote Republican. Of course, Gelman uses rather generous definitions of the “rich” in supporting this finding. If you want to look at simply the super-elite in the Forbes list or the top 0.1% of the country, then you’re looking at a majority Republican group no matter the geography.

Having said that, while Professors and staff etc can give away their money as they please, I think there is no doubt some bundling, some fundraising, going on at the UC Campuses. If these individuals have time and money for that, I think it’s worthwhile having a rethink whether we should be paying Chancellors $400,000 + housing +transport, and paying professors $120,000 for a six month work year.

Wealth Taxes are a pain to manage, and carry a very large beurocracy. A crafty accountat will become even more important. This is the main reason why among the moderate European left (which would still be labeled “Marxist Communist” or whatever, I wonder what the right wing nutbats would call our actuall honest to Marx communists) the wealth tax is not that popular. You may end with having to double the IRS for that, and as Medicare and your health insurance system shows, Americans are apperently pretty bad with keeping administrative costs in check.
I think its the Puritan streak.

Medicare/Medicaid is better in adminsitrative costs than US private providers (still worse than any German public sickness fund, and some large German private insurers iirc) but thats partly because implemnenting its complex and quite draconian laws are outsourced to health care providers.